Do you guys believe the "I Told You So" story is good?
Because I do not believe it, especially when the guy who says it is a dictator.
In Romania, there are some voices who tend to moan for the old communist leader, Ceausescu, because the sons of bitches who are now into power are goddamn robbers. But I don't like to hear the words: "I told you so". I think that these robbers should be hanged by the highest tree, but I still don't think that communism was the right way.

Back to Syria. There are voices saying that the world is scared that if the UN will give arms to the rebels then the zone will be the hottest zone on the planet, or at least the whole situation will be very dangerous for Israel. "I told you so", all parties will say, after.

I do not believe the "I told you so" slogan is good. I think that every dictator on the planet should be strangled and burned alive while drowned.

Let's not hide behind our shadows, because we are too scared of our size! We all know that the US is still making the international law.
I don't care what will happen next. Given the circumstances, this son of a bitch Bashar al-Assad should have a taste of the US drones and the US satellites, for the sake of equilibrium in battle, if not for the better.

Obama wants to win for another mandate. I think that if he will do nothing, given the multiple occasion the US intervened in the world, the world, including the American voters, will consider him weak.

This is the easiest task for him, ever. If he will go on tough on the Syrian army, most of the foreign people will love him, as well as the Arab world -which right now is on rage mode against America because the whole Qur'an scandal in Afghanistan -the Israel will love him because he is removing the threat of the Iranian forces, pushing them a little bit farther from Jerusalem, as well as the American voter and most of the people from all the countries, they will all love him for helping hopeless people against a dictator.

If the US will brings down the Syrian tyrannical regime, this will be reaction of the countries who's reactions US is concerned about:
-China will go a bit upset but they can't do shit, because they do not have full democracy in their country, so they do not have the support of their population -and, believe it or not, if a political party do not have the support of its people, then the political party is dead walking party
-the Iranians are already against the US, and if they will close Hormuz they will just break lose hell over their heads
-Russia is in the same bandwagon as China is -the reason for Putin not going aggressive and declaring recently that his ties with the Syrian regime are just normal, is that he knows that the population in Russia must feel at least some sort of compassion towards the population in a country ruled by a merciless dictator, so he do not want to lose many voters

As you can see, US can remove this dictator from the power, the path is clear. What is Obama waiting for, [massive intervention from the Hezbollah won't happen, later edit), what remains is complete extermination of the Syrian people or the continuation of this dictatorial regime?

What I mean is that any political and economic objective should be put aside, till the world gets rid of the dictators -yes, this a direct reference to the US policy towards the situation in Syria; after the mass-media campaign against the Syrian regime, the way Obama is using his diplomatic power to help the Syrian population is doing more harm than good; the connection between the recent heavy assault with tanks and aviation against the rebels to the intensifying of the live reports and to the Obama warnings and calls to stop the violence looks like he was telephoning al-Assad using a direct line and ask him to crush the rebellion, because the more the fighting goes on, the more it is creating a negative image to the American power of influence in the Middle East, and as now American politicians are obsessed with Iran, it is clear that the intervention in Syria will put a brake to their intention towards Iran.

Only 4,000 have weapons because in a dictatorial country the access of the usual citizen to weapons is heavily restricted!!!!!
I've seen hundred of thousand of Syrians demonstrating against the regime in most of the Syrian town Were those fake videos, too?

Yes, and you are ignorant. And like all ignorant you think you know everything and understand everything. The title of you journal is ridiculous also, you can continu on your delirium but don't spread your idiocity.
Khadafi was a hope for all the African continent and a threat to the Euro-US empire.

You could ask me where to look at to get real informations and not eat what the media around you want you to eat. But then again, that would require from you some sens of humanity and sens of pragmatic logic which you sadly don't have.

The main reason for the Arab spring is the presence of the US troops in the M.E. This presence blocked massive intervention from the extremist Arab countries as well as from Russia towards Africa. The reason for the Arab people to refuse the tyranny is US presence there, they realized that now it is the time to destroy the totalitarian regimes. The US presence in the M.E. gave the Arab population hope. But US keep being interested mostly about diplomacy and bussinesses.
The intention of the US was diplomatic: to strike Afghanistan and Iraq, tear them apart, eventually win the hearts of the naïve people there, stay there to be sure that the oil will flow and then to go.
The US politicians never thought about the implications of this invasion, that the population will want democratic changed. Things are not done yet. Now US wants to leave?

"This is what we always do. We always go in with our ideals and we change the world and then we leave. We always leave. But that ball, though, it keeps on bouncing.
-What?
-The ball keeps on bouncing."
(Charlie Wilson's War)

Regarding Syria and Al Quaeda, you should understand that the population must do something against the dictator, and so to the Syrian opposition every weapon is welcomed. They cannot stay out of Al Quaeda's weaponry and get killed, while the West is shaking hands with the Russians and warns the Syrian dictator to stop the hostilities (by any means necessarily, isn't this the full expression?)
By staying and eyeballing at Syria, US is losing its only chance to gain the Arab world's sympathy of the population. This is a mistake not only US has been doing, but a lot of countries. They all try to get in good diplomatic relationships with other countries, neglecting the fact that those who count are the population, not the officials. Hitler had the same problem with Mussolini, although Mussolini was his ally, the Italian troops did not want to fight. They were used in battles and were doing more harm than good to the German army, by weakening the whole Eastern front.
Same thing goes here: Obama tries to make as many allies as possible, at administrative level, neglecting the only important diplomatic level that really counts, which is the needs of the citizens of these countries.

The more the US do not intervene, the more the Syrian opposition will be more fractional (because those who give weapons to the FSA have all individual interests), and the more this civil war escalades it will take longer and it will clearly serve to Iran and Russia to bring massive amounts of armament close to Israel. Which will give more confidence to the Iranians (they have started to show it already) and to the extremists groups, which in turn will bring more conflicts in the zone, which in turn will require US intervention, at much higher costs and with the death of much more people.

The excuse of not intervening would work if US troops would be at home and the Afghanistan military bases would not exist. But given the present situation, US can't just retreat over night and wash its hands over what you left in the M.E. It could, but this approach is the most dangerous of all.

Somebody wrote kadafi was the enemy of the eu-us, he was an ally for bout 30+ years to the eu as far as holding back immigrants and alot more, but then libya became a big fat turkey. You know the kind that you attack with an axe and chop of its head and sort the pieces. Sarkozy gipsy was upset about the fact that his popularity was pretty wack, and how little the french companies gained when the iraqi turkey was cut up to pieces. So he made a move for it, and got two fat birds with 1 stone. The uk does not care who is taking the lead the french ready to jump, or the us drowning in debt and 2 wars (which are unwinnable, and server only 2 very simple and solid purposes).

"the us drowning in debt and 2 wars (which are unwinnable, and server only 2 very simple and solid purposes)"
Would you agree that their presence in the Middle East is what caused the Arab Spring, and if yes, what effect do you think this will have on us, Europeans?
I used to advocate for non-intervention in the M.E., but considering that the Russians and the Iranians are not going to stop to try to impose their influence in the zone, I am not so sure anymore.

I don't think the us presence caused the arab spring. If you remember the us at the begining had no clue how to treat egypt in the first couple of days. The us was scared what will happen if the radicals get in power (if the us turns on some pressure on the country). So their tactic was to somewhat wait out what will happen. Egypt besides turkey is the most important ally of the us in the region, not to mention israel. This is the point the piece treaty between egypt and israel makes egypt a supreme trustee of the piece in the M.E. (the one that cost Sadat his life). So thats why the country needs to be treated cautiously. Anything that leads to revolting in a state like that, is no tactical goal of the western world. Although egypt has the most chance to become atleast a pseudo democracy of somesort, while libya for that matter just like yemen for example is inadequate to become a democracy with tribal roots that deep.

Also besides the fact that kadafi held back some percent of the refugees escaping to for example italy the arab springs main cost for the EU (and the rest of the world) will be that the absolute monarchies from bahrein the to all the little kingdoms from the gulf with the leadership of saudi arabia will rise crude oil prices. They do this becouse massive welfare costs spent on the population legitimate the rulers of these monarchies. In times when neighbours struggle with revolting, these states need to step it up with these costs.